One major argument against the young-earth creationist position has been the apparent great age of distant galaxies. Those galaxies are so distant that the light that we see would have taken billions of years to reach us at its current speed. Therefore, the argument goes that they would have to be at least billions of years old. Obviously, this is not in agreement with the young earth/universe creation position. However, this argument is not valid if the speed of light was faster in the past.
"Deep time” is the underlying assumption behind the modern cosmological “Big-Bang Theory” and everything that flows from it in the modern scientific establishment, including geology with its millions of years of earth-history, and the modern biological theory of evolution that requires, we are told, millions of years to form life as we know it. Dr. Don DeYoung in his book Thousands not Billions defines “deep time” thus:
The redshift is an effect observed in astronomical data in which the color of light from distant objects is shifted toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum).
In this short article, we shall not try to examine thoroughly every attempted interpretation of the red shift, but we shall briefly examine a few generally well-known ones and primarily focus on a relatively new one.
The following are some well-known conventional explanations of redshift:
One problem for young-earth creationists (those claiming that God created the universe only thousands of years ago, rather than billions of years ago) has been the apparent great age of distant galaxies.
Scientists Travel U.S. Highway 441 Between Cherokee, NC and Gatlinburg,
TN to Test Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model
for Polonium Radiohalo Formation
From time to time, new research results give additional insight into the Biblical flood. In fact, for one who understands the Biblical flood, many current discoveries are easy to understand. For example, a recent article in Science “calls for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters”. 1 Because mud sediments are “the dominant sediment type on earth”, this reappraisal has tremendous implications for our understanding of the entire geological column.
Good scientific theories are able to explain data and make testable predictions. For the Christian, a third element is required, that the theory be in harmony with the clear teachings of scripture. Some creation scientists even begin with scripture to formulate theories and hypotheses. In this essay, we will look at three predictions ultimately based on scripture, made by physicist Russell Humphreys of the Institute for Creation Research. The predictions deal with (1) the magnitude and dynamics of planetary magnetic fields, (2) the existence of a cosmic rotation axis, and (3) diffusion of helium through zircons. All of these predictions are in accord with a young earth interpretation of Genesis 1. As we will see, the data fit the predictions well.
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
For those who adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth, scripture is the first, final, and unrivaled authority (sola scriptura) on the questions of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, and the age of the earth. Young Earth Creationists (sometimes referred to as “YECs”) believe that the Bible is inerrant and clear in its teachings about origins. Good exegesis based upon the grammatical-historical hermeneutical approach and comparing scripture with scripture leads to the conclusion that the earth was created in six 24-hour days in the recent past. Nature viewed through the lens of scripture lends support to the recent creation view.
Figure 1. Rounded quartzite gravel mixed with angular gravel within residual piedmont soil suggesting abrasion by water transport. Underlying weathered rock is not quartzite.
Young earth creation scientists who agree on what the bible teaches about creation may still disagree on the interpretation of natural phenomena. Such is the case with creation scientists Robert Gentry 1